While it seems odd, keep this in mind: MLS hasn’t missed often with its expansion choices in the post-contraction era. Chivas was a move made out of desperation and an attempt to woo a hard-to-reach demographic. Philadelphia has under-achieved, but they were always going to have a team in that market eventually. NYCFC was forcing the issue, but if the Belmont decision goes their way tomorrow, that’s another problematic situation made better. But Salt Lake City*, Toronto, Seattle, San Jose, Portland, Vancouver, Montreal (mostly), Orlando, Minnesota and Atlanta have all done well. This is not the 1978 NASL expansion that saw six teams pop up overnight and flop in short order. *If you’re old enough, remember the skepticism with which the Salt Lake City announcement was met back then? Every small market-backwater-Mormon criticism you could think of flooded this place. Good times.
On the field, yes. But I'm not sure if they really have in other metrics. Even after 8 dismal years they still get several games a year on the ABC affiliate here and likely are pretty good with the sponsorship stuff. Now if they were able to get there act together on roster building that would all likely be even better. Yeah. And I'm pretty sure people were complaining that they were getting a franchise over soccer city USA. Which was Rochester in those days. Edit: About that...... Sources have confirmed to me that the Islanders' bid to build a new arena at Belmont has been accepted by NY state, beating out a bid from NYCFC. An official announcement is scheduled for tomorrow.— Ian Thomas (@byIanThomas) December 19, 2017
Collectively though they are in the second category. Individually no that's true, there's no Bob Kraft or John Fisher in the group.
Guess that all but confirms that Detroit is no longer in the running for the last spot this time around. If there were "issues" with Sac or Cincy but they're still in consideration that would seem to mean Detroit was not any longer.
About that...... Sources have confirmed to me that the Islanders' bid to build a new arena at Belmont has been accepted by NY state, beating out a bid from NYCFC. An official announcement is scheduled for tomorrow.— Ian Thomas (@byIanThomas) December 19, 2017 [/QUOTE] I think thats a win for NYCFC. Playing in Long Island would be as problematic as playing in North Jersey for nycfc.
I think thats a win for NYCFC. Playing in Long Island would be as problematic as playing in North Jersey for nycfc.[/QUOTE]
The ownership questions for Sacramento will come from the SJ owners, who, despite contrary public statements, don't want to share Northern California with another MLS team.
Could be on to something. The Quakes owners have been very clear all of NorCal is their MLS territory. And if there's an ownership group that is going to be anal about territorial integrity it'll be guys who not only own an MLS team, but own the MLB A's. Who've been cock blocked from moving where they wanted to due to territory their franchise loaned to another MLB team only to never get back.
Twice if you count Dave Checketts. Three times if you count Vergara's waivering commitment as the real money behind the Fue brothers.
I think, if I'm remembering correctly, that in order for NYC FC to come into the league, besides the MLS expansion fee they also had to pay a one time territorial rights fee to Red Bull. Don't see why Sacramento couldn't do the same thing with San Jose.
I mean in theory I agree. But who knows. Long term rights to a territory might be of more value to the Quakes than a one time payment. God knows long term rights have been worth a hell of a lot more to the MLB Giants than anyone realized when the A's gave them away to the Giants for free 25 years ago.
Which... sorry, that ship's sailed. There weren't ever a lot of Quakes fans in Sacramento, and there are even fewer now that SRFC is in town. I don't think I've even seen a Quakes jersey in Sacramento, apart from their traveling fans when they came to play here, since late 2014.
MLS is leaving money on the table here. If ownership groups are willing to pay, take the money. Set a new price, but take the money. It’s a real problem when they can’t figure out which $150M checks they want to cash.
CONGRATS TO NASHVILLE FOR 2019- FRANCHISE # 24 OR 25! FROM A NEWS SOURCE, THIS IS STRANGE: Nashville and Sacramento, California, were viewed as the favourites for the league’s 25th and 26th teams, with Cincinnati and Detroit the other finalists. A decision on the second area picked is expected within a few weeks. why a 2-3 week wait for the remaining spot?? (and i think cincy is not in the running due to the columbus relocation issue)- possibilities: 1. MLS want more info on the possible accommodation for detroit's +60 000 seat indoor stadium, Ford Field and if it can be another atlanta success story drawing crowds in the + 30 000 average, or 2. MLS wants to do more research on Sacramento's ownership/finances, and/or possible territorial conflict with SJ, although i would think this would have been known beforehand- the ownership issue has been an on-going problem, but in the last 2 weeks, a new investor worth billions has rejoined the existing owner 3. MLA waiting to see if miami can finally be awarded a franchise, thus filling spot #24, or moving the spot to another city- nashville- and pushing miami to the back-burner- after nashville, there would still be 2 spots- not 1- open, thus both sacramento and detroit by 2020- franchises # 25-26 there has to be a reason for waiting another several weeks
Interesting rumour about the Sac bid. If they don't make it in this round, they will probably end up like Rochester... Being told by a well-connected source that wishes to remain anonymous that Nagle IS the problem with the Sacramento bid. "His ego has cost Sacramento a place in MLS," a quote from my source.— Kartik Krishnaiyer 🇺🇦🌻⚽️ (@kkfla737) December 19, 2017
Nashville is in. I told y’all. I’d be really worried if I were SacTown. I also told y’all that Sac isn’t getting in.
If Sac can settle their ownership group issue, i think they are in. Maybe not this go around but perhaps the next go around.
I’ve been telling y’all that Sac isn’t getting in and I called Nashville way before anyone else. Good me!
No. A market and ownership group has to add something to the collective besides that check. That’s why that old pejorative canard about “If Warren Buffet wanted a team in Omaha, they would take him in a second” was bullshit then and is still bullshit now. Omaha adds nothing to the overall mix, regardless of expansion fee. And the history of recent expansion is for mostly large markets. Taking the money just to take the money would be short sighted. That’s why fans don’t run leagues.